https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- A similar thing happens with other C++11 keywords: bad.cc:1:1: warning: identifier ‘decltype’ is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] decltype i = 0; ^~~~~~~~ bad.cc:1:1: error: ‘decltype’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘decltype’? decltype i = 0; ^~~~~~~~ decltype It's even worse in this case, because the code isn't valid even in C++11, so the fix-it can never be a useful change. (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > I'd say we should just not print the bogus "did you mean" if the identifier > fuzzy matching found is the same as the one used originally. Or not add > constexpr into the suggestions in this case because it is not C++98? Not adding non-C++98 keywords into the suggestions make sense, and would solve both of these examples. (Another option for the constexpr case would be to suggest dropping the -std=c++98/-std=gnu++98/-std=c++03/-std=gnu++03/-ansi option). If there are still other ways that the match could end up being the same as the original then suppressing the "did you mean" would still make sense.
